The Rational Response Squad is a group of atheist activists who impact society by changing the way we view god belief. This site is a haven for those who are pushing back against the norm, and a place for believers of gods to have their beliefs exposed as false should they want to try their hand at confronting us.

Buy any item on AMAZON, and we'll use the small commission to help end theism, dogma, violence, hatred, and other irrationality. Buy an Xbox 360 -- PS3 -- Laptop -- Apple

The official RRS defeats Way of the Master thread

Posted on: May 8, 2007 - 10:15pm

RationalRespons...

Posts: 564

Joined: 2006-08-17

Offline

The official RRS defeats Way of the Master thread

This is it. This is the official thread that Kelly and Sapient will try to interact with as many visitors as they can. If you are new here, welcome aboard. If viewing this from the homepage you can click the title of the thread, create an account, and post your comments. Kelly and Sapient will not have time to address all the email and would like to keep all of their exchanges public for the benefit of the readers who are curious. Soon we will have a downloadable document available right from this post that will expose as many arguments as we can expose from the ABC Nightline Face Off with Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron. Here are the highlights of the face off from our eyes...

Did we make mistakes in the full debate? Yes. We stumbled on a few words, made an inaccurate point or two, and made a weak point at a moment or two. Ironically our worst points still seemed to be too much for them. So while we welcome criticism, especially constructive, please keep in mind that we feel we have a good handle on what we did wrong. We'll grow, learn, and get better. What we're really hoping for in this thread is for the actual content and discussion about gods existence to be brought into question. Challenge us to continue, and we will continue to respond to your claims. If you are a theist, please feel free to post your scientific evidence for God, leaving out the miserable arguments that Ray Comfort has already been beaten on of course. If you are having trouble finding the video on ABCs website, you can find most/all of the videos here. DIGG it.

UPDATE Sapient spoke with ABC and voiced concerns leveled by many atheists in the community that the editing job for the Nightline piece gave Ray and Kirk a free pass. The most commonly voiced criticism of ABC was that it managed to show the debate as somewhat even and that there was no clear victor. This discussion was accepted only under the understanding that Ray and Kirk would prove God exists without invoking faith or the Bible. Anyone that understood the format saw that Ray and Kirk failed at their premise as soon as the proof of God became the Ten Commandments. ABC was made aware that commentary like "It was difficult to know if either side could claim victory" gave the impression that they were pandering to their largely Christian audience. While Sapient understood that this may be a wise business move, it was noted that it wasn't an accurate representation of the discussion. The Rational Response Squad brought it's "B" game and still destroyed every claim Kirk and Ray threw at them. In more positive news, we were made aware that the ABC unedited video of the debate was viewed over 160,000 times in the first 12 hours. Hopefully a few people have found the strength to overcome their god delusion.

regardles of mistakes made, the points Ray and Kirk were making were not up to par of scientific empiricism. To point out, that you made some mistakes in your argument is a red herring, something theists do all the time. To find a small flaw, and claiming victory is fallacious...because in the end, Ray and Kirk's whole argument was wrong.

Ray's Coke can argument was something he used way back when he debated at an American Atheist convention. The flaw that it sets up an argument for polytheism was apparently missed on Ray.

Kelly was right to point out that absolutely no scientific arguments were presented. I would have went farther and mentioned that Ray conned everyone by debating under false pretenses but Kelly was probably being a bit nice since her and Brian gave them a sound beating.

Ray's bible arguments about a few of the 613 commandments was weak. If telling a lie makes one a liar does then telling the truth make one honest? His absolute conclusion is debunked by a contradiction since one cannot be a liar and honest at the same time if Ray's fundy logic is correct.

I just had to keep on watching the part where Ray and Kirk were introduced to the First Law of Thermodynamics. It's a concept that is taught in grammar school but Ray and Kirk must have dropped out of school quite early considering their 'deer in the headlights' look.

I can't imagine how Nightline can possibly make the fundies look good. It was a completely one sided debate and Brian was right in calling Ray and Kirk on the fact that they only used fear and emotion in a debate that was billed (by Ray) as being one that would focus solely on science.

There are theories out there that include an infinite universe. Dr. Hawking has explained that our visible universe could be similar to an expanding soap bubble in a foam of multiverses. Whether thats the right theory or not isn't really important though. What matters is the question they posited was used to question Kirk and Ray's perceived importance of an eternal creator.

The mind, once expanded to the dimensions of larger ideas, never returns to its original size. ~Oliver Wendell Holmes

I never thought I would live to see the day when Ray Comfort was totally stumped for something to say. Both of you (Brian and Kelly) were fabulous beyond my wildest hopes. You absolutely devastated the usually-smug and cocky Ray Comfort. I actually felt embarrassed for him, and I truly sensed that he knew that he and Kirk came across as faith-based fools. I'm so very proud to be part of Rational Responders. I'm even more proud now. Tomorrow (Wednesday) I'm spending the entire day and evening sending out email notification to everyone to watch this program. I encourage everyone reading this thread to do the same. If everyone here sends out messages to everyone in your address book, this will increase the viewership by many thousands. As Brian said at the beginning of the clip: this was an historic event -- the first time that a major network carried a debate about God's existence. Let's celebrate this great victory that Brian and Kelly have brought to us.

Brian said the universe always existed? Wasn't it created 13.5 billions years ago? What happened before that?

Well, Cpt. Passion Fruit from how I understand current big bang theory our universe as we know it came into existance approximately 14.5 billion years ago. Previous to that we do not know. Current laws of physics state matter cannot be created nor destroyed, so if we use this law of physics we can infer the matter was there before the big bang but do not know the state of the matter. There are other theories of multiverses, and bubble verses, but it boils down to the fact that we do not know the state of anything prior to the big bang and probably never will.

Well, Cpt. Passion Fruit from how I understand current big bang theory our universe as we know it came into existance approximately 14.5 billion years ago. Previous to that we do not know. Current laws of physics state matter cannot be created nor destroyed, so if we use this law of physics we can infer the matter was there before the big bang but do not know the state of the matter. There are other theories of multiverses, and bubble verses, but it boils down to the fact that we do not know the state of anything prior to the big bang and probably never will.

So I was off by a billion years so what?

Anyway, we need space (read: a massive universe) to store matter. No space, no matter. Otherwise where was the matter?

I feel the multiverse theory is extremely similar to God.

a)We can't prove it i.e we can't play Mr.Peabody and go there. Much like we can't see God.

b) We can ANYTHING we want about another Universe and not be proven wrong. In my other thread I presented that Sailor Moon could exist if we had infinite universes. Similar to the way people will say something is God's doing.

Ray's bible arguments about a few of the 613 commandments was weak. If telling a lie makes one a liar does then telling the truth make one honest? His absolute conclusion is debunked by a contradiction since one cannot be a liar and honest at the same time if Ray's fundy logic is correct.

Thank you, I make this point all the time.

Here's how I'd make it rhetorically in a debate:

Ray, do you trust your wife more than me?

If so, then you must concede that all people are not equally liars.

Which means that you trust some people more than others.

That means you actually, in your real life, do not act as if everyone is a liar.

Quote:

I can't imagine how Nightline can possibly make the fundies look good. It was a completely one sided debate and Brian was right in calling Ray and Kirk on the fact that they only used fear and emotion in a debate that was billed (by Ray) as being one that would focus solely on science.

I loved that point, and it was one I suggested, although I think the RRS team already considered it. It was killer.

By the way, Comfort is whining that the atheist crowd clapped too much.

Anyway, we need space (read: a massive universe) to store matter. No space, no matter. Otherwise where was the matter?

Well, big bang theory holds that all matter was once 'condenced' into a singularity.

Quote:

I feel the multiverse theory is extremely similar to God.

It certainly seems grand and mystical.

The problem is that multiverse theory removes the need for a god.

I supposed you could say 'the multiverse is god', but then you'd be leaning towards pantheism, I think.

Quote:

a)We can't prove it i.e we can't play Mr.Peabody and go there. Much like we can't see God.

b) We can ANYTHING we want about another Universe and not be proven wrong.

Not sure I agree, but nice points.

By the way, I disagree with the RRS team's argument that the the laws of thermodynamics forbid universe creation, the laws apply to events within the universe and not necessarily the universe itself. There are scientific ex nihilo creation theories. Want to see one?

For the most part, looks like you guys did a great job. I can't wait to see the whole thing. One question, though: Is Brian arguing in favor of a static universe? I know of no modern cosmologist who still accepts that theory. The Big Bang is pretty well-established, what with cosmic background radiation and all.

By the way, I disagree with the RRS team's argument that the the laws of thermodynamics forbid universe creation, the laws apply to events within the universe and not necessarily the universe itself. There are scientific ex nihilo creation theories. Want to see one?

For the most part, looks like you guys did a great job. I can't wait to see the whole thing. One question, though: Is Brian arguing in favor of a static universe?

No.

A theist asked the same question at the taping.

He's holding that the singularity prior to our present universe must have existed in some fashion, 'eternally'

According to Penn State physicist Lee Smolin, there are three possible ways to decribe the nature of a singularity, not just one. Brian (and the RRS team) is denying A:

* [A] There is still a first moment in time, even when quantum mechanics is taken into consideration.

* [B] The singularity is eliminated by some quantum mechanical effect. As a result, when we run the clock back, the universe does not reach a state of infinite density. Something else happens when the universe reaches some very high density that allows time to continue indefinitely into the past.

* [C] Something new and strange and quantum mechanical happens to time, which is neither possibility A or B. For example, perhaps we reach a state where it is no longer appropriate to think that reality is composed of a series of moments that follow each other in a progression, one after another. In this case there is perhaps no singularity, but it may also not make sense to ask what happened before the universe was extremely dense.

I actually hold that ex nihilo creation does not violate physics, (and I rely on the works of Edward Tryon and Alex Vilenkin for this) although I tend to favor Brane theory and multiverse myself.

Brian said the universe always existed? Wasn't it created 13.5 billions years ago? What happened before that?

I speak in probablities. It's abundantly more likely that the matter and energy that comprise our Universe today have always existed rather than the alternative god. Furthermore, it's equally as ridiculous for people to explain the beginning of the Universe with "god" than to say it was created by a Snarfwidget.

Before our Universe has existed I'm not sure what existed, no scientist is, what I'm sure of is that it's more likely that the matter existed in some state, rather than god.

I'll ask you the same question Ray and Kirk failed on...

If God has always existed, why can't the Universe have always existed?

I never thought I would live to see the day when Ray Comfort was totally stumped for something to say. Both of you (Brian and Kelly) were fabulous beyond my wildest hopes. You absolutely devastated the usually-smug and cocky Ray Comfort. I actually felt embarrassed for him, and I truly sensed that he knew that he and Kirk came across as faith-based fools. I'm so very proud to be part of Rational Responders. I'm even more proud now. Tomorrow (Wednesday) I'm spending the entire day and evening sending out email notification to everyone to watch this program. I encourage everyone reading this thread to do the same. If everyone here sends out messages to everyone in your address book, this will increase the viewership by many thousands. As Brian said at the beginning of the clip: this was an historic event -- the first time that a major network carried a debate about God's existence. Let's celebrate this great victory that Brian and Kelly have brought to us.

For the most part, looks like you guys did a great job. I can't wait to see the whole thing. One question, though: Is Brian arguing in favor of a static universe? I know of no modern cosmologist who still accepts that theory. The Big Bang is pretty well-established, what with cosmic background radiation and all.

No, I'm saying the Big Bang was the beginning of our Universe, not necessarily the beginning.

I loved that point, and it was one I suggested, although I think the RRS team already considered it. It was killer.

One thing that impresses me about this site is that the core members are willing--more than willing, in fact--to take advice from anyone with a sound argument. todangst, you usually make sound arguments, but I noticed when someone new showed up and spelled out a few arguments, Sapient was thankful. Very cool.

todangst wrote:

By the way, Comfort is whining that the atheist crowd clapped too much.

Had I been there, I would have clapped, too. Is there something wrong with that?

Books on atheism, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.

Brian said the universe always existed? Wasn't it created 13.5 billions years ago? What happened before that?

Well, Cpt. Passion Fruit from how I understand current big bang theory our universe as we know it came into existance approximately 14.5 billion years ago. Previous to that we do not know. Current laws of physics state matter cannot be created nor destroyed, so if we use this law of physics we can infer the matter was there before the big bang but do not know the state of the matter. There are other theories of multiverses, and bubble verses, but it boils down to the fact that we do not know the state of anything prior to the big bang and probably never will.

BGH, you know much more than I do about cosmology, but isn't it meaningless to talk about a "before" when it comes to the creation of the universe? Space and time are inexorably linked, so "before" there was space, there was no time. <--See, even that statement is pretty meaningless...even with quotes around "before."

What do you think?

Books on atheism, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.

Way to go, Sapient and Kelly. Thanks especially for pointing out the quasi-terrorist tactics of religionists, which hurt religionists more than anyone else. I'm also glad you pointed out how sorry you feel for Ray and Kirk. I do, too.

I still get flustered and upset with religionists (probably because I'm trying to heal from a very serious case of indoctrination), yet at the same time I feel really, really sorry for people who are being terrorized by these despicable belief systems.

Hopefully, the longer I stay here the more I will be able to hear arguments and debate them dispassionately, while acquiring more and more compassion for those still within the grasp of religious dogma.

I am most impressed.

P.S. That "painting" of Mona Lisa wasn't even a painting, it was a reproduction of some sort. So shouldn't Ray Comfort have been looking for the factory where it was produced?

Books on atheism, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.

I never thought I would live to see the day when Ray Comfort was totally stumped for something to say. Both of you (Brian and Kelly) were fabulous beyond my wildest hopes. You absolutely devastated the usually-smug and cocky Ray Comfort. I actually felt embarrassed for him, and I truly sensed that he knew that he and Kirk came across as faith-based fools. I'm so very proud to be part of Rational Responders. I'm even more proud now. Tomorrow (Wednesday) I'm spending the entire day and evening sending out email notification to everyone to watch this program. I encourage everyone reading this thread to do the same. If everyone here sends out messages to everyone in your address book, this will increase the viewership by many thousands. As Brian said at the beginning of the clip: this was an historic event -- the first time that a major network carried a debate about God's existence. Let's celebrate this great victory that Brian and Kelly have brought to us.

David Mills

Well, Mr. Mills, I contacted everyone on my list whom I thought might be the slightest bit receptive, plus one fundy who tried to proselytize me after we had agreed to disagree (getting him back?).

When does David Mills get to be a Rational VIP? I think he totally qualifies.

Books on atheism, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.

It is obvious to me as a person of reason, rationality and a lover of science that the debate was won easily by Brian and Kelly. The points Ray and Kirk made where I am sorry to say laughable. I wish they came up with something new but every single point they made was nonsense and unoriginal. It seemed to be that Ray just wanted this media platform to publicise himself and his ministry and proselytise to the nation.

"For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. " - Carl Sagan

Excellent work guys! Brian kept his cool and stuck to his plan. Kelly looked like she wanted to gloat a little at the end, but she had every reason to. You guys totally 0wnd them. It's the first time i've seen both Ray and Kurt speechless!

I think the debaters did well, but those guys were not even trying to make a serious argument. I mean, it was a joke. There are plenty of theists out there who could do much better, and probably could've given the RRS a real run for their money.
The reference to occam's razor irked me. Occam's razor doesn't state that the simplest theory is the most probable. The idea is that the theory that makes the fewest unnecessary assumptions is most probable. A theory could be more complicated but more elegant, ie make fewer assumptions, and still be more probable.
Laplace illustrated the principle perfectly when asked by Napoleon where god fit into his theory. He replied that he had no use for that hypothesis.

I’ve watched the video a few times to get to the juicy bits with them becoming smaller by the minute. I do have a couple of questions to ask.

I can’t tell what it is exactly that Kelly is referencing historically speaking that sets Ray off at this point in the video because it is the start to a new segment, so I wanted to ask Brian and Kelly how this came about and essentially where it went in terms of the debate.

Ray steps on the security of his pulpit and lectures Kelly (and perhaps Brian as well) about the “faith” they place in history books in their argumentation. He says, “You quote history books like they are gospel; yet you ignore the gospel ‘regales’” (I think that is what he says).

Kelly starts to get a point/question in about George Washington but the applause kicks in before she can finish.

At that point Ray, emboldened no doubt by his side’s enthusiasm, spouts some nonsense about quoting history books being synonymous with blind faith “in the words of man.” Then he claims, “We have the words of the living god; the bible has substantiated itself to be god’s word by JUST OPEN STUDY… (snip schoolmarm moment)… The bible is self proving; its exomatic (sic)…blah, prophecies in our day and age… blah…most famous… blah…great seller blah…It speaks the words of history in existence before it happened…blah… Matthew…blah sphericalearth…”

Then it cuts out with you two noting that you have indeed read the bible.

I’m very curious about this exchange for a couple of reasons.

Firstly, I wonder if either of you forced Ray to admit that all historical scholars of the bible note that it was written by man and that the texts within the current bible exclude many others that were not chosen by man because of various agendas throughout the ages. These are similar to points I have heard you make on the radio shows I’ve listened to at RRS. I wonder if they were used in this case and had the same effect on Ray as they did on your guests.

Secondly, I am curious to find out if this notion of “open study” he suggests as a prerequisite to reading the bible has a criteria that can be juxtaposed to the methods used to establish historicity in any text.

Based on what he has said in this debate, I imagine he would have hanged himself quite well indeed.

For what it is worth, I thought you both handled yourselves very well. I’m also excited about the full length version. Keep up the good work. I’m pleased as punch to have found you in cyberspace.

1) The universe is definitely expanding and has been doing so for approximiately 14 billion years. This is measurable, testable and the 'heat' of the explosion can be detected

What actually happened in the first nano-seconds of the universe is generally unknown , our current physics simply can't explain it yet which is in no way evidence of god but a better answer would be to just explain what we do know and be open about what we don't

Static universe has always been here is one theory but is not generally supported

2) Conservation of energy and matter I believe is due to relativity not thermodynamics E=mc^2 etc

Relativity again does not sit well with quantum mechanics and energy/matter can actually appear out of nowhere for extremely short amounts of time.

Basically most modern physics is about getting relavity and quantum mechanics to work with each other noodle sorry string theory.

It's all very complex stuff in some ways a lot less understood than evolution etc. A lot of the answers are quite simply 'we don't know' but its great that humanity is trying to find out.

There are some good physics books out there for non-scientists which are well worth a look and maybe a bit of research or if you havent got a physicst on your team it might be worth getting one